more importantly, what information was offered that affected the election? Was any of it fake?
I think the fact that anyone is pumping air into this story is hilarious. All it does it highlight the corruption again, when we were just starting
to see that shiny thing to distract us.

And the idiots with the air pump are.....wait for it.........the same ones who were caught with their pants suit down!

The left might just be sowing dissent and perhaps a feeling that the election lacks legitimacy so that if the electoral college goes faithless and
votes for Clinton there will be less outrage. I'm not saying the electoral college will go faithless, but let's wait and see.

1. According to who?
2. According to two Republicans who've viewed it, one of them being McConnell whose wife just got an appointment.
3. Of course they're not? The CIA doesn't do that.
4. What kind of evidence are you looking for?
5. Example?
6. It was denied once? No reason to believe that Assange would even know the original source if an intermediary was used.
7. Okay.
8. Oh, so it's okay it happened because we "deserve it" because Trump Pravda says so. Got it.
9. Oh! Russian influence is okay as long as Breitbart shills approve. Check.
10. They were really stretching to get this list to 10.

1. According to who?
2. According to two Republicans who've viewed it, one of them being McConnell whose wife just got an appointment.
3. Of course they're not? The CIA doesn't do that.
4. What kind of evidence are you looking for?
5. Example?
6. It was denied once? No reason to believe that Assange would even know the original source if an intermediary was used.
7. Okay.
8. Oh, so it's okay it happened because we "deserve it" because Trump Pravda says so. Got it.
9. Oh! Russian influence is okay as long as Breitbart shills approve. Check.
10. They were really stretching to get this list to 10.

The news is discussing an idea that the Russians are to blame for the hack and it may have influenced the election.

Is that your position as well? and you are ignoring what was hacked and it's legitimacy to effectively "kill the messenger", is that about right?

When the first thing I see when I open up the website is junk it wants me to buy instead of news I know their agenda is.

Besides I am pretty sure its an editoral because of who wrote it.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the “most influential” people in news media in 2016. His new
book, See No Evil: 19 Hard Truths the Left Can’t Handle, is available from Regnery through Amazon. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Notice more pushing to buy things in the about the author section.

Another thing many of the "sources" for the bullet points are just other breitbart articles. Sources in those articles consists of more breitbart
articles. Some of the actual not breitbart sources take one or two sentences that fit the narrative of the breitbart article.

No? I'm saying this list is pretty weak fodder for people who don't want to believe in Russian intervention in the election or worse, simply don't
care because Donald Trump won.

The idea that this is new because the Democrats have been raising a stink and blabbing to the media is ridiculous. There was evidence that the
Russians were involved in hacking the DNC emails before the first email was even released. Before the "Guccifer 2.0" persona was even created.

In fact, today is the six month anniversary of that evidence being published by the CTO of CrowdStrike. Have you read through any of that or the
mulitple independent reviews of the forensic evidence that arrived at the same conclusion? Unlike some of these other posters, you're in the IT field.
You're in a position to read it and make up your own mind.

This isn't something that just sprung up out of nowhere in the last week. People putting their fingers in their ears and yelling "Nah nah nah
mainstream "fake news!" Left-wing plot! Didn't happen! No proof!" isn't going to change that.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.